Q. What is this?
A. This site calculates the "performance rating" for the World of Tanks players you specify.
It is currently in alpha stage (early release).

Q. What is the performance rating?
A. It is a calculated value assessing the player skill, based on an assessment of the tanks the player is playing, the damage dealt (considering tanks played!) and the win rate.

Q. How is the performance rating better than efficiency rating?
A. It is a more accurate assessment of player skill, as it focuses on two values which are hard to boost together - damage dealt, and win rate (CW/TC can boost win rate but will lower damage dealt). A player generally cannot improve these two values without directly helping his team, thus there is no way to selfishly inflate the performance rating values.

Q. What are the issues with efficiency rating?
A. Efficiency rating is flawed in many ways and allows players to boost it if they focus on simply doing things which increase the efficiency rating.
In particular, it over-values capping and initial spotting, and players who mostly worry about efficiency rating ruin games for others by 'ninja-capping' or 'suicide-spotting'.
For example, a player on the EU server has the absurd efficiency rating of 16,505 attained in exactly one battle in a 'loltractor'. Such examples are plenty.

Q: Many players with high efficiency rating also have a high performance rating, so what is the point?
A: Good players that care for their team and help winning have both high efficiency rating and performance rating. Only players who artificially boost their efficiency without helping their team get a lower performance rating.
So for the majority of players these two values will indeed correlate.

Also note that the scales of ER and PR are different (see below)!

Q. Can you publish the exact formula for performance rating?
A. Not at this point. It is a complex algorithm, not a formula, so would involve publishing the source code.

However, the main things it looks at are:

What damage have you done? This has the most impact, and is evaluated considering what tanks/tiers are played.

What is your win-rate?

It also does some adjustments in case of very low number of battles played and other special cases.

Q. I think the performance rating of player X is wrong, it should be higher/lower.
A. Please post the player name in this discussion thread and we will evaluate.

Q. What are some general guidelines for evaluating performance rating?
A. In general, although these may be reevaluated later:

Less than 1150 - bad player

1150 to 1250 - below average player

1250 to 1450 - average player

1450 to 1750 - good player

1850 to 1950 - great player

1950 to 2000 - excellent player

More than 2000 - "Unicum"

Q. Can you add parameter X to the performance rating?
A. WarGaming only publishes a limited set of data to their web site, which limits the options. Of these, we have chosen the parameters that are the most relevant to evaluating player performance, and ignored others such as initial spotting, cap points and average experience as they are either too easy to boost or are too inconsistent (e.g., depend on presence of premium account).

Q. Why are you not including kills per battle?

A. Kills are sufficiently accounted for in damage and winrate. Any kill helpful to the battle effort will indirectly raise the winrate and any kill by definition increases damage.

It just introduces another variable to muddle things up for no great advantage. And it could encourage someone to actively kill-steal.

Q. Why are you not including defence points?

A. Any defence helpful to the battle effort will indirectly raise the winrate, and is thus already accounted for in the rating.

Including it could also encourage people to "farm" defence points by waiting for enemy to cap longer before resetting if the situation permits doing it safely.

Here's my 2 cents on what you've probably missed - what comes by as good damage varies by tier. Doing 2000 dmg in tier 3 is well, equal to 10 kills - you've wiped the map yourself, - doing it in tier 5 is okay - you've definitely tipped the scales, doing it in tier 10 is meh...So damage dealt on average is a poor statistic to use, if its not calculated according to the tiers it involves.

Here's my 2 cents on what you've probably missed - what comes by as good damage varies by tier. Doing 2000 dmg in tier 3 is well, equal to 10 kills - you've wiped the map yourself, - doing it in tier 5 is okay - you've definitely tipped the scales, doing it in tier 10 is meh...So damage dealt on average is a poor statistic to use, if its not calculated according to the tiers it involves.

That's what I thought first too. Does this method count in the played tiers?

Too value on average exp... Not that many have ran premium whole time. And on a scale all ratings are trying to bypass average exp, because it is not equal. Also maximum exp is nothing, you can get lucky once... try it twice... But to the point. One should always ignore statistics which include a bonus from no performance what so ever.

If you exclude this your tool might become more useful as everything efficiency tool needs is drop on the count on spotting, cap and deff... nothing more as now you get high eff for spotting and capping a lot. How efficient you're at if you winrate is still less than 50% even while having 3+ on spots and cap... :/

Edit: Further average tier is not included... which means small tier players get hampered fast.

Ok, I guess it's time to repeat my statement I made almost 1 year ago.

All this e-stick measuring tools in this game, aka performance rating/ win rate, or how ever you wanna call it is = to squat. Why? Simple. Here is your answer.

Ill give you the simplest example, take an above average player like myself (or any other one), after more than 2 years of gaming I'm only at 1448 ER, because I played very little in platoons or clan matches, countdowns or what-have-you, but most of my time solo. So even if for the latter part of my "career" my ER has improved due to my experience and knowledge getting better and better, those rainy days when I was learning the game and I had crap performance will always drag my WR/ER down. So basically what I'm saying my real value is not this, but higher because of this:

Imagine I'm gonna meke a new account, pour 200 euros in it, play non stop premium, with gold shells, with my favorite tanks (which by now I know like that back of my hand), join a first hand clan, top one, you name it - and play only, but only in 3 man platoons with countdowns and all that. Now imagine my WR/ER if I do that. It would be so easily over 65%WR/1700+ER.

How I know this, because I can beat a player at that level, 2 out of 1 most of the times and the only thing he has to brag about is his numbers, because I don't/didn't have those privileges. And anyone in my case could do the same...

Without the consideration of winrate the rest is fair. I don't think that tier has anything to do since I have seen players in tier10 tanks/tds/arty do 0 (yes, zero) damage. So having a big gun doesnt necessarily mean that u will do any damage at all. As of winrate I agree with PAKFA and have to add my own experience of doing enormous damage (like 5000) with my isu-152 and still the battle was lost. On the other hand there were battles (again in my isu) that I did low or no damage (either because the rest of the team was a wolfpack of meds or because i was scouted and killed by arty too soon) and yet the battle was won. To my opinion the only way of calculating someones real perfomance is by taking into account the damage he deals + the damage dealed by teammates to tanks he scouted but I suppose it's hard since wg doesnt show damage dealt by others in profile.

Anyway I have 1235 efficiency and 1490 perfomance. The efficiency rate is low since I play ALOT of arty and as everybody knows arty can only do damage (arty cannot scout, it can rarely defend and in more rare occasions can cap and its kills influence reduces by arty tier). Just consider that I have 1770 efficiency in my T-50-2 just because I scout and most of the time I dont do any damage since I run all over the field to uncloak enemies.

Yes, I admit I have xvm installed too. Not to make fun out of people with low efficiency but to better assert the teams potential and who might need an extra help to cope with the enemy.

Damn I should install it for my own good as my friend has the attitude of who we should not trust and whom we should when platooning. But I would still use it to know who is the noob who never covers your ass when you try to push and who will most likely take it on your heels... XVM is good, but many use is it for bad.

Generally I hate mods. Because most of them do make the game less balanced on those who do not use them, but something that does nothing in-game, but your attitude, is more than welcome, why I promote XVM thout not using it yet myself.

Too value on average exp... Not that many have ran premium whole time. And on a scale all ratings are trying to bypass average exp, because it is not equal. Also maximum exp is nothing, you can get lucky once... try it twice... But to the point. One should always ignore statistics which include a bonus from no performance what so ever.

If you exclude this your tool might become more useful as everything efficiency tool needs is drop on the count on spotting, cap and deff... nothing more as now you get high eff for spotting and capping a lot. How efficient you're at if you winrate is still less than 50% even while having 3+ on spots and cap... :/

Edit: Further average tier is not included... which means small tier players get hampered fast.

Read the FAQ better, he tells you already that he doesn't take xp in consideration because it gets boosted by premium...